David Lim wrote:[John 4:36] "και ο θεριζων μισθον λαμβανει και συναγει καρπον εις ζωην αιωνιον ινα και ο σπειρων ομου χαιρη και ο θεριζων"Is it common for a singular verb to come after "ομου" when the subject of the verb is clearly intended to be plural?

I don't really think that the ὁμοῦ is key here; in fact, it seems rather redundant inasmuch as we clearly have a καὶ ... καὶ constrction. I think that the key element here is that the verb follows the first of a coordinated pair of subjects; use of a singular verb is common in this instance.

BDF

(4) Agreement with Two or More Co-Ordinate Words135. Connected by και (ἤ). Regarding agreement with two or more subjects connected by καί, the same loose rules are valid for the NT as for classical usage. The following examples with persons as subject may be noted: (1) When the subject consists of sing. + sing. or of sing. + plur. the verb agrees (a) with the first subject if the verb stands before it, except when the subject-group is basically conceived as a whole; (b) with both subjects taken together if the verb stands after the second subject; (c) with the first if the verb stands between; (d) rules (a) and (b) can be combined when a finite verb stands before and a participle after the group, or the reverse. (2) When one of the two subjects is a 1st plur., the verb is in the 1st plur. and modifiers which refer to the subject are in the nominative plur.; such modifiers are in the masculine even when the subject group combines masculine and feminine. (3) Attributives (participles) which belong to two or more connected substantives customarily agree with the nearest. (4) The sing. is regularly used with two sing. subjects connected by ἤ (as in English but contrary to German).(1) Mayser ii 3, 23f., 30ff. (a) A 11:14 and 16:31 σωθήσῃ σὺ καὶ ὁ οἶκός σου, where the first is the main subj. (‘you together with your house’); likewise Jn 2:2 ἐκλήθη δὲ καὶ ὁ Ἰησοῦς καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ. But also when the subjects are equal: Jn 18:15 ἠκολούθει δὲ τῷ Ἰ. Σίμων Πέτρος καὶ ἄλλος μαθητής; 20:3, A 16:30. Still more so when the subjects are not persons: παρέλθῃ ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ Mt 5:18. Plural: Mk 10:35 προπορεύονται αὐτῷ Ἰάκωβος καὶ Ἰωάνης οἱ υἱοὶ Ζεβεδαίου (the brothers were thought of as a pair from the start). Jn 21:2 ἦσαν ὁμοῦ Σίμων Πέτρος καὶ …, Lk 23:12 ἐγένοντο φίλοι ὅ τε Ἡρῴδης καὶ ὁ Πιλᾶτος, A 5:24 ὡς δὲ ἤκουσαν … ὅ τε στρατηγὸς … καὶ οἱ ἱερεῖς (mentioned together above in 17 and 21), cf. 1:13, 4:27. Where such reasons are lacking and the variants are conflicting, the sg. is probably to be preferred, e.g. Lk 8:19, A 17:14 (R 15:26 following p46B?). (b) See under (d). (c) Lk 8:22 αὐτὸς ἐνέβη εἰς πλοῖον καὶ οἱ μαθηταὶ αὐτοῦ, Jn 4:36 (with ὁμοῦ!), etc. (d) A 5:29 ἀποκριθεὶς δὲ Πέτρος καὶ οἱ ἀπόστολοι εἶπαν; also v. 21. Lk 2:33; Mt 17:3 ὤφθη (SBD, al. -ησαν) … Μωυσῆς καὶ Ἠλίας συλλαλοῦντες. The number also varies with two finite verbs: Jn 12:22 ἔρχεται Ἀνδρέας καὶ Φίλιππος καὶ λέγ ουσιν. Hardly correct A 14:14 D ἀκούσας δὲ Βαρναβᾶς καὶ Παῦλος διαρρήξαντες … ἐξεπήδησαν, 13:46 D.(2) Mayser ii 3, 34f. Lk 2:48 ὁ πατήρ σου κἀγώ (Mary) ὀδυνώμενοι ἐζητοῦμέν σε; Jn 10:30; 1 C 9:6.(3) Lk 10:1 εἰς πᾶσαν πόλιν καὶ τόπον; 1 Th 5:23. H 9:9 δῶρά τε καὶ θυσίαι … μὴ δυνάμεναι (3:6 βεβαίαν is missing in p13p46B, interpolated in the others from v. 14).(4) Mt 5:18 ἰῶτα ἓν ἢ μίακεραία οὐ μὴ παρέλθῃ; 12:25, 18:8; E 5:5; the sg. is even more common when the verb precedes the group as in 1 C 14:24. G 1:8 ἐὰν ἡμεῖς ἢ ἄγγελος … εὐαγγελίζηται (impossible to embrace both by means of -ζώμεθα, which otherwise could be used with reference to ἡμεῖς). Exception: Ja 2:15 ἐὰν ἀδελφὸς ἢ ἀδελφὴ γυμνοὶ ὑπάρχωσιν (γυμνός or γυμνή would have been harsh).

David Lim wrote:[John 4:36] "και ο θεριζων μισθον λαμβανει και συναγει καρπον εις ζωην αιωνιον ινα και ο σπειρων ομου χαιρη και ο θεριζων"Is it common for a singular verb to come after "ομου" when the subject of the verb is clearly intended to be plural?

I don't really think that the ὁμοῦ is key here; in fact, it seems rather redundant inasmuch as we clearly have a καὶ ... καὶ constrction. I think that the key element here is that the verb follows the first of a coordinated pair of subjects; use of a singular verb is common in this instance.

David Lim wrote:[John 4:36] "και ο θεριζων μισθον λαμβανει και συναγει καρπον εις ζωην αιωνιον ινα και ο σπειρων ομου χαιρη και ο θεριζων"Is it common for a singular verb to come after "ομου" when the subject of the verb is clearly intended to be plural?

I don't really think that the ὁμοῦ is key here; in fact, it seems rather redundant inasmuch as we clearly have a καὶ ... καὶ constrction. I think that the key element here is that the verb follows the first of a coordinated pair of subjects; use of a singular verb is common in this instance.

David Lim wrote:[John 4:36] "και ο θεριζων μισθον λαμβανει και συναγει καρπον εις ζωην αιωνιον ινα και ο σπειρων ομου χαιρη και ο θεριζων"Is it common for a singular verb to come after "ομου" when the subject of the verb is clearly intended to be plural?

I don't really think that the ὁμοῦ is key here; in fact, it seems rather redundant inasmuch as we clearly have a καὶ ... καὶ constrction. I think that the key element here is that the verb follows the first of a coordinated pair of subjects; use of a singular verb is common in this instance.

For what it's worth, the critical text (and the WH text) does not have the καί before ὁ σπείρων, so the construction is somewhat different in the critical text. I don't know what text David is quoting (it could be the TR or an early edition of Robinson-Pierpont's Byzantine text without accents).

Stephen Carlson wrote:For what it's worth, the critical text (and the WH text) does not have the καί before ὁ σπείρων, so the construction is somewhat different in the critical text. I don't know what text David is quoting (it could be the TR or an early edition of Robinson-Pierpont's Byzantine text without accents).

Yes; I was quoting that Byzantine text, though I usually refer to the NU text as well. Thanks for pointing out the discrepancy! I checked and noted that in this case, however, both Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus have the "και", so it is not a clear textual decision anyway. In any case I have no problem with the verb agreeing with the first subject, but just wondered why the "ομου" just before it did not make the verb change to the plural and perhaps even move to after the second subject.

David Lim wrote:I checked and noted that in this case, however, both Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus have the "και", so it is not a clear textual decision anyway.

Well, it's pretty clear for the editors of the critical text. Sinaiticus is Western in this part of John, while Alexandrinus is (early) Byzantine, so the critical text is just following their usual preference for the Alexandrian text here (B, P66, P75, etc.). The addition of καί may have been motivated to strengthen the notion of ὁμοῦ, but apparently the scribes were just not bothered about the singular verb.